Re: window sizing patch

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 9 Aug 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> 
> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> > ok, i think i went through all of the relevant portions of this patch
> > and only have a couple minor issues:
> > 
> > +void       gtk_widget_get_size_request    (GtkWidget           *widget,
> > +                                           gint                *width,
> > +                                           gint                *height);
> > i thought we agreed on not having this function, since people
> > looking for a widget's size will want allocation anyways and
> > would wrongly figure get_usize/get_size_request (yeah, setter/
> > getter symmetrie would be an argument, but a getter here doesn't
> > really make much sense).
> 
> You're right, your notes and my notes both say we don't have this.
> I probably just left it there by accident. ;-)
> 
> However we did go through and add that huge "getters" patch after our
> discussion, adding getters for all setters on principle. Does that
> change our decision?

i don't think so, it's what i meant to adres with "setter/getter symmetry",
i.e. we shouldn't have a getter if it doesn't make sense just because
we have getters in most other places, don't you agree? ;)

> > +static void
> > +gtk_window_finalize (GObject *object)
> > +{

> > +  if (window->geometry_info)
> > +    {
> > +      if (window->geometry_info->widget)
> > +       gtk_signal_disconnect_by_func (GTK_OBJECT (window->geometry_info->widget),
> > +                                      GTK_SIGNAL_FUNC (gtk_widget_destroyed),
> > +                                      &window->geometry_info->widget);
> > +      g_free (window->geometry_info);
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  G_OBJECT_CLASS (parent_class)->finalize (object);
> > +}
> > 
> > the disconnect doesn't look right to me, window->geometry_info->widget
> > not being part of window's widget tree is somewhat pathological, if
> > it is however, the widget should already be finalized and you can't
> > disconnect at handler at that point.
> 
> I didn't change this code, it's just "diff" having a bad day - look at
> how gtk_window_finalize() being -'d is interleaved with
> gtk_window_move() being +'d, and then gtk_window_finalize() is
> re-added again in its entirety. Go figure.

ok, sure i believe you on this, i didn't pay too much attention to
whether you changed this or not, i just noted it looks kinda odd ;)

> OK, I'm going to do some testing since GTK has changed a bit since I
> wrote this, then put what I have in CVS and let the bug finding begin.

ok, good.

> 
> Havoc
> 

---
ciaoTJ